Today's conflicts are frequently described as being complex. In this report, we aim to study recently developed tools used for monitoring and evaluation of interventions in complex conflicts, in order to make an initial assessment on how well these approaches address conflicts and conditions of complexity. Conflict analysis is considered an important pre-requisite for evaluation of interventions in conflicts, thus we look both at tools for evaluation and conflict analysis. The aim is both to assess the respective methods suitability for evaluation of interventions, and also to assess how they fit together. The next step will be to start testing the most promising methods on real cases. We have analysed four conflict analysis frameworks (from Sida, Swedish National Defence College, US DOS and US DOD respectively), and five frameworks for monitoring and evaluation (from US DOD, NATO, the World Bank, OECD/DAC and Michael Patton). We conclude that all the analysed methods for conflict analysis can be used for an evaluation of an intervention in a complex conflict. All the studied conflict analysis are based on different theoretical frameworks. Thus the evaluation results will depend on what conflict analysis method is chosen. The military assessment methods studied here seems to show limited promise. Their validity and reliability are judged to be limited, and there are indications that this type of approaches incurs negative side-effects on the organisation using them. Impact evaluation has a higher degree of validity and reliability than the military assessment methods, but the preconditions for conducting impact evaluation rarely occur in a complex conflict setting. Thus, the OECD-DAC framework and Developmental Evaluation seems to promise a better approach for evaluation activities in complex conflicts.